Category Archives: Journalism

Is Ana Marie Cox wearing pants?

Posted on by

Suppose you had a friend that was really smart and funny, and that friend got to cover and live-blog White House press briefings that you could watch “with” her (on  C-SPAN) and chat back and forth. Does that sound like something you might be interested in?

Okay, Ana Marie Cox isn’t a friend of mine but she feels like one. I’m one of her legion of fans that go back to the Wonkette days. She now works for Air America.

I don’t know if this is journalism or not and I don’t care. In the same way I don’t care what you call The Daily Show. I call it fun and interesting.

I think of this as the MST3K effect. Even a boring press conference is fun if you’re watching it “with” fun people.

“A prideful Luddite is the worst kind”

Posted on by

Tony Messenger (@tonymess) tweets us to this lament by St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bill McClellan who confesses to being “proud of knowing nothing about the Internet.”

“But all around me the Others, with their secret knowledge, are gaining power. I got another e-mail today about optimizing search engines. Also, a note that an editor will be helping us refine our blogging, social networking and sub-channel pages.

Like a student who feels an increasing sense of panic as he hears the teacher talk in gibberish about an upcoming test, I realize that none of the terms mean anything to me.”

I know quite a few people who share Mr. McClellan’s views/pain. Most seem to resent being expected to know how to use the Internet and computers and such. I’m grateful I’m not in a position of “forcing” anyone to learn these skills and happy that I am able to help those who want to.

All right everybody, take off your shoes and place them in the containers

Posted on by

Missouri’s new governor held a press conference today and reporters who showed up were told they had to leave their cell phones at a reception desk. St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s Tony Messenger was one of the reporters:

“Members of the Capitol press corps revolted and demanded reasons. “Security reasons” was the response given by Nixon spokesman Scott Holste, who said it was Nixon’s policy and the governor wouldn’t budge.

At that point, reporters started talking about walking out of the news conference before it began (and I took out my cell phone and Twittered the news). Holste went back to the governor’s private offices, and came back with the verdict. Reporters didn’t have to give up their cell phones.

Asked after the news conference about the policy, Nixon communications director Jack Cardetti said he didn’t believe the cell phone policy had anything to do with security.

“The governor believes when meetings are taking place in the oval office .. that everybody should be focused on the task at hand,” Cardetti said, noting that staff and others who are invited to meetings in the governor’s office follow the same policy. But Cardetti said the policy would not apply to the press, many of whom use their cell phones for reporting purposes.

During the news conference, reporters also noticed a new tiny camera above one of the doors. The camera feeds to a screen on a secretary’s desk that allows her to know when meetings have begun or are finished in the office, Cardetti said. He showed curious reporters the screen that captures the feed. The meetings are not recorded, he said.”

As Colonel Klink would say, “Veeeeeery interesting.”

How about, put your cell phones on vibrate or turn them off? And a wee little camera above one of the doors. Curiouser and curiouser.

One of the comments on Messengers’ blog post asks:

“If there is now a camera that is recording or broadcasting all meetings in the Governors office, should not this be covered under the Sunshine Law and allow the feed to be streaming video on the internet so that we, as taxpayers, can see what is happening in the meetings of our governmental officials?”

But back to the cell phones –and I admit to being both slow and naive– why wouldn’t the governor want reporters to have cell phones during press conferences, assuming one doesn’t buy the “let’s stay focused” explanation?

UPDATE: Missourinet reporter Steve Walsh was at the press conference and snapped a photo of the gov’s tiny camera.

“News is being deindustrialized. No factory needed.”

Posted on by

I pulled the following from a recent post on Jeff Jarvis’ Buzz Machine:

“But there is no more one job description – journalist – in one industry – newspapers – with one business model – print advertising – to pay them.

I believe, as I said here, that many slices will make up a new pie: more focused news companies contributing journalism and curation and other value; successful specialist bloggers growing large businesses (Gawker Media, TechCrunch, Silicon Alley Insider); smaller bloggers that are big enough to make them worthwhile to make (BaristaNet); volunteer bloggers and contributors who add to the pie because they care and share; public-supported journalistic activity (Spot.us, ProPublica); crowd-created efforts, and on and on.

Note, though, the verb that started that long sentence: “believe.” I don’t know yet. None of us does until we try and learn and share best practices.

But I am confident that journalism as an activity will not disappear, that there will be a market demand for it, that there are many new ways to fulfill the task (and debate about how it is done). But – bottom line – journalism and journalists will not disappear unless they insist on defining themselves as an industry that operates in just one way . The key to survival is reinventing what we do.”

http://twitter.com/inauguration

Posted on by

A week or so ago I got a ping that @inauguration was following my Twitter feed. I assume they just searched all Twitter feeds for “inauguration” and found me. As I always do, I checked the profile page and found:

“Get tips and helpful scoop as you plan for the Presidential Inauguration on January 20, 2009 when Barack Obama takes the oath of office.”

There was a link to a website but I didn’t click it.

@inauguration has been a great source for news about the upcoming event. With links to lots of news sources.

I finally checked the url on the Twitter page and learned that the feed belongs to WUSA-TV in D.C. Thinking back, a lot of the tweets have taken me to pages on the WSUA website.

We’re they being sneaky by not clearly identifying the TV station? Doesn’t feel that way since I now know they pointed me to a variety of sources for relevant news about the inauguration.

My point here is WSUA didn’t just feed the latest news from the station website. They didn’t just promote their coverage. Someone was smart enough to understand how Twitter really works and use it. Cost: zero.

This will be the norm for any big event. And it won’t always be news organizations doing it. It will often be the event organizers. And should be since they will have the most information and have it first.

Yes, I could have set up a Google Alert for “inauguration” but adding @inauguration to my feed was just one-click.

Seasoned Twitter users will remind me there’s a hash tag (#inauguration) that aggregates tweets from ALL Twitter users, not just one source. True, but there’s a lot of noise in that stream. Takes too long to separate the wheat from the chaff.

And to bring it down to the individual level, I could set up a Twitter page just for my tweets from the event, so that my “followers” aren’t drowned in my tweets from DC. Probably won’t be posting enough for that to be a problem, however.

In conclusion… I quickly determined that the @inauguration Twitter feed had useful and interesting information. I didn’t notice or care who was behind the feed.